|
http://deadstate.org/man-commits-suicide-after-court-ordered-christian-drug-treatment-program-tried-to-un-gay-him/quote:Recently the New York Times ran a series of articles highlighting the growing trend and dangers of arbitration over traditional litigation. In its final piece of the series it featured a story about Nicklaus Ellison. Ellison was in court facing charges of drunk driving after allegedly “breaking his probation …and crashing into four parked cars,” said Cheryl Spivey,his mother, to the NY Times. Facing jail time, the judge instead offered the young man a final option — enrolling in Teen Challenge, a drug-treatment program that encourages participants to become more “Christ-like.” I am a Christian and also a Lesbian but I know that lots of organizations that make a huge point of proclaiming their Christianity are not the kind that would tolerate me. My own church was talking about sin for instance and I know our church's stance on sin is not the list of 7 or 10 things you better not do or you'll go to hell kind of image that some traditions have. There is a wide wide wide gulf of thought on the issues of biblical authority and sin and reconciliation which in my understanding is not as true as of the law where there are behaviors that are clearly allowed and not allowed with only one common law tradition rather than churches where there are thousands of different theologies. As a Marxist, sin isn't just a personal thing but a corporate one, systemic, institutional racism is sin, magnified. But beyond that, I often hear fear mongering from conservatives about Sharia law, isn't this basically the same thing? The Sharia law issue came up when Canada supposedly was allowing Muslim arbitration that used Sharia law in divorce cases and conservatives lost their loving minds. I am very skeptical of binding arbitration clauses. They aren't fair. This man signed a contract because the alternative was jail and the person making the contract has all the power. Its not this image of two private citizens engaging in a mutually benficial agreement within a perfect liberal meritocracy, there are power disparities between people. There are material conditions that contracts occur within. And the arbitration are biased and also are incredibly expensive for the party that is suing. Add on to this what is likely to be a fundamentalist theology and you have a recipe for giving this program license to do whatever it wants.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
I still have absolutely no idea how signing away your rights is even remotely legal- especially if you're under court order to go to a program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:But beyond that, I often hear fear mongering from conservatives about Sharia law, isn't this basically the same thing? The Sharia law issue came up when Canada supposedly was allowing Muslim arbitration that used Sharia law in divorce cases and conservatives lost their loving minds. yep. conservatives are not worried about religious law. they are worried about other religions religious law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yep. conservatives are not worried about religious law. they are worried about other religions religious law. Indeed. Religious law isn't the problem that these loons have with sharia; rather, the problem is that it's from the wrong religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:I still have absolutely no idea how signing away your rights is even remotely legal- especially if you're under court order to go to a program. It can't be. The law is hosed up in a lot of ways but I can't imagine these organizations could have total carte Blanche on a person's life because they chose a different option for court ordered rehab
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Arbitration agreements are also being used by corporations to prevent class action lawsuits. It is very legal and very real. Turns out mandating arbitration when one party is much more powerful than the other is a really stupid idea, and I said as much during the sharia thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Why should an agreement the guy signed have anything to do with whether his family can sue though? I assume they didn't sign any arbitration agreement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:I still have absolutely no idea how signing away your rights is even remotely legal- especially if you're under court order to go to a program. This. I guess the smart move is to now go out and become an arbitrator who rules in favor of people instead of corporations. Why? Well, typically in these agreements both parties actually have to agree to an affordable arbitrator, so just refuse the corporate one and offer up your "affordable candidate" and take them to real court when they don't agree to the one you choose. I was under the assumption that the agreements often had a "voluntary" aspect to them, i.e. they're phrased in ways such as "an arbitrator that both parties agree to will be chosen" basically banking on the fact that no one would know enough about the system to try to challenge them. Is this at all true? Do both parties have to agree on the arbitrator and can I start a firm of arbitrators?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:I still have absolutely no idea how signing away your rights is even remotely legal- especially if you're under court order to go to a program. When I was in college I took a law class. The lawyer teaching the class basically said that no contract can go over a persons rights. I imagine its basically can the person afford a good enough lawyer to fight long enough for them that they can have recourse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
What's stopping us from forming our own, cut-rate arbitration firm that offers consumers a competitive alternative to arbitrators chosen by corporations?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:What's stopping us from forming our own, cut-rate arbitration firm that offers consumers a competitive alternative to arbitrators chosen by corporations? I assume that when corporations force you to agree to arbitration, they specify which arbitrating service will be used. They'd be crazy not to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Crigit posted:I assume that when corporations force you to agree to arbitration, they specify which arbitrating service will be used. They'd be crazy not to. Right, that's what I thought, but when I read the NYT article listed above there were no specific arbitrators or firms listed, just "one that both parties can agree to/afford." So if we started a consumer oriented arbitration firm why couldn't people request that those services be used and take them to court when the corporation disagrees with the choice? If someone knows more about the specifics on this, please chime in. My last post pointed out the language that seemed to required voluntary compliance by both parties, so if you just jam up this part of the system it seems that arbitration has no leg to stand on. Like you can just not agree to the ones they have and keep recommending affordable alternatives and eventually you'll both be forced into the regular court system to figure this out. I figured that was one of the ways arbitration was legal at all, is that there's some veneer of both parties voluntarily complying. Just give consumers a choice in arbitrators and the whole arbitration thing will disappear as quickly as it appeared.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
from here: https://www.workplacefairness.org/forced-arbitration-agreements 12. What is the standard for arbitrator bias? An area of unconscionability which courts are very sensitive to in general is any biased method of selecting the arbitrator. For instance, if the employer maintains complete control over selection of the arbitrator, most courts have found the agreement unenforceable. Unfortunately, this is a situation that is still somewhat difficult to discover, as employers often use what appear to be neutral or independent agencies to supply arbitrators. However, in many situations, these agencies actually advertise their services exclusively to employers and emphasize that they are a means of controlling the cost of employee claims. Also, there are times when arbitrators do regular business with an employer and depend upon the income from that employer's business. All of these are factors that can influence a court in deciding whether an arbitration "agreement" is unenforceable because it does not protect the employee's right to a neutral party as an arbitrator. Boom, consumer friendly arbitration firm idea born. If you can get into a legal fight about how arbitrators are selected then you can kill arbitration. Provide a "neutral," incredibly cheap service, marketed to individuals forced into arbitration. When there is a fight over arbitrator selection then you take it to court and we find out if the Justice system is well and truly hosed. I'm telling you guys, "voluntary compliance" is the key to this whole thing and its the pillar we must attack hardest. Once arbitration loses that credibility then it'll lose its legal standing too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:What's stopping us from forming our own, cut-rate arbitration firm that offers consumers a competitive alternative to arbitrators chosen by corporations? 1. You are a goon 2. Go back to 1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:1. You are a goon There are no legal requirements for being an "arbitrator." But hey, instead of discussing a topic, lets poo poo on it and then go back to complaining about the subject at hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:What's stopping us from forming our own, cut-rate arbitration firm that offers consumers a competitive alternative to arbitrators chosen by corporations? Will you rig arbitration in a corporation's favor? If not, what is their incentive to write you into their contracts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Will you rig arbitration in a corporation's favor? If not, what is their incentive to write you into their contracts? Because companies don't write in a specific arbitrator, and even if they did, the terms of the contracts require you to agree to the person they choose. So, you just say, "I don't agree to this arbitrator and instead offer up this cheaper one. Good luck fighting that in court." Voluntary compliance is the key to the issue. If you just don't agree to the ones they provide and instead offer a credible, affordable alternative what basis do corporations have for turning that one down and can either party go to court to find out exactly how an arbitrator is selected? Otherwise just continually decline the company suggestions and counter with offers of your own until a court is forced to rule on the issue. There is no way courts will rule that "Companies get to pick the guy and you're stuck with it." So long as your alternative is equally credible and equally, if not more so, affordable, then I don't see a legal reason for a company to reject your offer. Can anyone with experience in this talk about arbitrator selection?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
I think arbitration has its place in certain religious situations. If a member of a church or mosque has a minor dispute with another member and that can be solved to the satisfaction of both parties, ok then. But something like the case in the OP, or a case I recall in Texas (I think) where a woman was told by a religious arbitrator from her church that she had to stay in an abusive relationship, that's definitely not ok. In the context of certain churches arbitration is sometimes used to defend spousal abusers and child molesters. I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but it seems to me that any situation involving a death. physical harm, or money over a certain amount should by default be handled by the court system and not a arbitratior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:I think arbitration has its place in certain religious situations. If a member of a church or mosque has a minor dispute with another member and that can be solved to the satisfaction of both parties, ok then. But something like the case in the OP, or a case I recall in Texas (I think) where a woman was told by a religious arbitrator from her church that she had to stay in an abusive relationship, that's definitely not ok. In the context of certain churches arbitration is sometimes used to defend spousal abusers and child molesters. I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but it seems to me that any situation involving a death. physical harm, or money over a certain amount should by default be handled by the court system and not a arbitratior. Seems to me like we have a justice system for a reason and forced arbitration should be illegal. "But then all arbitration would be illegal!" Yeah. So?  Remember, most of the issues with the justice system come from being underfunded. Not enough attorneys and judges on staff to hear cases. If we just funded the loving thing, like most of our floundering civil institutions, it'd work better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Because companies don't write in a specific arbitrator, and even if they did, the terms of the contracts require you to agree to the person they choose. So, you just say, "I don't agree to this arbitrator and instead offer up this cheaper one. Good luck fighting that in court." Um, corporations are great at fighting things in court, and it isn't hard for corporate sponsored arbitration to compete on costs with "consumer friendly" arbitration since they stand to materially gain more from favorable outcomes. And all of that ignores if the justice system simply rules in favor of the corporations without much fight. The assumption that you simply do not have to agree and that you could find favorable arbitration does not seem to mesh with the horror stories I have been reading about arbitration, including the article in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Um, corporations are great at fighting things in court, and it isn't hard for corporate sponsored arbitration to compete on costs with "consumer friendly" arbitration since they stand to materially gain more from favorable outcomes. And all of that ignores if the justice system simply rules in favor of the corporations without much fight. The assumption that you simply do not have to agree and that you could find favorable arbitration does not seem to mesh with the horror stories I have been reading about arbitration, including the article in the OP. Hey, great points! Its true that corporations are great at fighting things in court, I never said this was "1 weird trick," but it seems to me to be a chink in the armor. Worth exploring. And good point about competitive pricing. Its all stuff that needs to be looked into more. The link I posted had something about courts ruling that contracts are the foundation of arbitration law in the first place. It said something about both participants being equally represented and I think there is a lot of room to explore and push on that front. I think a lot of the worst abuses of arbitration are against people most ignorant about it, and just consulting a lawyer once or twice isn't going to give you any edge. Its just that if this is the system and its only legal because of voluntary compliance then there is an avenue to exploit. It won't be easy and it won't change the landscape, but I think there's a market and room for growth. The limits and rights of all parties needs to be tested. edit: the fact that there's no discovery in arbitration just goes to show how skewed the system is. How can you demonstrate anything when the company can just legally hide poo poo? RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Seems to me like we have a justice system for a reason and forced arbitration should be illegal. "But then all arbitration would be illegal!" Yeah. So? Oh, no doubt. Forced arbitration is ghastly and should be 100% illegal. I can't imagine any reason why a private company would need it besides wanting to screw people over. I was just talking about optional arbitration in minor, religious situations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Being able to possibly select the arbitrator does nothing to change the really damaging effect of these clauses, which is that they essentially remove the consumer's right to participate in a class-action lawsuit. This allows companies to get away with a lot of bullshit, because no one's going to go to arbitration over $50, but if they take $50 of of 100,000 customers (for example), they've made an extra $5mil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Being able to possibly select the arbitrator does nothing to change the really damaging effect of these clauses, which is that they essentially remove the consumer's right to participate in a class-action lawsuit. This allows companies to get away with a lot of bullshit, because no one's going to go to arbitration over $50, but if they take $50 of of 100,000 customers (for example), they've made an extra $5mil. This is also true. Totally right. What we can do is try to lobby for the repeal of the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act which is the legal foundation for all of this. That or a new law altogether.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Oh, no doubt. Forced arbitration is ghastly and should be 100% illegal. I can't imagine any reason why a private company would need it besides wanting to screw people over. I was just talking about optional arbitration in minor, religious situations. In regards to the situation outlined in the OP; private arbitration bound by religious books is just a small hosed up part of the bigger problem. Why the gently caress are courts ordering people to enter religious rehab programs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:You have a very limited imagination if you cannot think of a legitimate reason for private arbitration. It's a massive part of the American Justice System, allows disputes to be settled faster and for a lower cost than using the public courts system, and saves money. That was the thing I was wondering myself. Did the judge state outright 'This is a christian group and therefore is the right choice' or did he say 'this group has volunteered to take you' or some stupid poo poo like that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:In regards to the situation outlined in the OP; private arbitration bound by religious books is just a small hosed up part of the bigger problem. Why the gently caress are courts ordering people to enter religious rehab programs? Haven't they been doing this for ages with AA, though? Granted, that isn't as explicitly religious, but it's still religious enough that the government shouldn't be able to compel people to attend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Although the background and outcome of the case and the family being barred from suing is absolutely atrocious, this guy wasn't FORCED to go to this place. He was given the option as an alternative to jail time. It's still hosed up to me that your only other option would be a religious group that can make you suit their doctrinal purposes in any way they want but let's not exaggerate what actually happened in a case that's already gross enough as is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Although the background and outcome of the case and the family being barred from suing is absolutely atrocious, this guy wasn't FORCED to go to this place. He was given the option as an alternative to jail time. This. People are given the "choice" but I think we can agree there's a touch of coercion sandwiched in there
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:This. People are given the "choice" but I think we can agree there's a touch of coercion sandwiched in there Yeah definitely, absolutely no one is going to choose jail time over weird religious rehab even if it's fundamentally against your beliefs. And it's still a terrible thing but it's not something a court can directly sentence you to like a lot of people in this thread seem to think or be implying. It's a whole different type of problem altogether.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
These sort of arbitration agreements are an area of the law I know only a very little about but my first intuition is that the agreement in the OP is not remotely enforceable in this situation. I wish one of our legal goons with knowledge in this area would chime in on this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I wish one of our legal goons with knowledge in this area would chime in on this. And arbitrator selection, please? Plaintiff/defendant rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
So, given that corporations can have a religious affiliation, how long until they start mandating arbitration under religious law?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Although the background and outcome of the case and the family being barred from suing is absolutely atrocious, this guy wasn't FORCED to go to this place. He was given the option as an alternative to jail time. I'm not FORCING you to hand over your wallet, its just an option alternative to me murdering you. This kind of contract was signed under textbook duress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I'm not FORCING you to hand over your wallet, its just an option alternative to me murdering you. Would someone be able to argue that there's an implied threat of violence in being sent to prison, or is that just nonsense my non-lawerly brain came up with? I mean we all know that there is, but would that stand up in court (almost certainly not, I suppose)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I'm not FORCING you to hand over your wallet, its just an option alternative to me murdering you. No it's not, congrats on finding the one part of this that isn't hosed up to bitch about. Unlike getting murdered him going to jail was a correct legal outcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I don't see why they couldn't have allowed him to transfer to a secular drug program that isn't run by evangelicals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:I still have absolutely no idea how signing away your rights is even remotely legal- especially if you're under court order to use a program. The basic idea of being able to sign away your right to use the normal court system by agreeing to arbitration is sound - there are legitimate uses for arbitration, the court system tends to approve of disputes being settled outside of the courtroom since the legal system is overloaded enough already, and arbitration would be useless if one party could unilaterally renege and take it to real court in hopes of a different decision. The problems are that the court system has taken an overly generous and naive view toward organizations and companies forcing everyone they deal with to sign an arbitration agreement, that individual judges don't always pay very close attention to the details of the programs they're ordering people to sign up for (and sometimes that judge actually believes in that kind of program), and that the relative lack of good drug programs that aren't tied to religion or other stupidity often limits the options of even genuinely well-meaning judges who just want people to get treatment rather than prison. RaySmuckles posted:What's stopping us from forming our own, cut-rate arbitration firm that offers consumers a competitive alternative to arbitrators chosen by corporations? Since no corporation will ever agree to using your firm, you're not going to get any business; at best, you'll just be stalemating corporations into real court rather than their own arbitrators. If you're not getting any business, then you're not making any money, so you can't afford employees or marketing or office space, so your arbitration firm enters a death spiral that ends when no one has even heard of you, or when your operation is so pathetic that a court rules that you're not a real arbitration firm that qualifies as a credible option. Mandy Thompson posted:I don't see why they couldn't have allowed him to transfer to a secular drug program that isn't run by evangelicals. The article only briefly touches on this, but there may not have been an affordable one nearby. Free drug treatment programs are essentially charity, so there aren't a lot of them, and the majority of them are religious-run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
As a weirdo who reads EULA's and contracts before signing them, arbitration agreements generally have some clause in them where the company will pick 7 arbitrators and then you and them will take turns "Crossing Out" one name on the list until only one is left. This gives you enough "choice" to get around legal problems, as far as I can tell, but is still completely bullshit since you're not picking any of them to begin with. Anyway the big deal with arbitration is that once an arbitrator decides against a company, that company will never, ever use them again. You, a person, will probably only need an arbitrator once or twice in your life, but a company could use one constantly. Arbitrators know where their money comes from, and since they generally don't have to make their results public there's really no reason why they shouldn't all just decide for the corp every single time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:And arbitrator selection, please? Plaintiff/defendant rights? My understanding is that the lawsuit should be directed at the State requiring the usage of programs that demand issues be resolved through religious arbitration. Arbitration is a preferred means of conflict resolution because it alleviates strain on the court system. There is a hesitancy to overturn agreements to resolve issues via arbitration because, at least in theory, both parties agreed to utilize arbitration without being under duress. If you could just re-neg on your agreement to utilize arbitration then it would serve no purpose as a means of conflict resolution. I have some reservations about the narrative provided in the story posted in the OP. Sweeping denials of liability like the one presented in the story are not enforceable, and it certainly would not be an open and shut decision as to whether or not the family had standing to sue Teen Challenge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 18:46
|
|